this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
64 points (98.5% liked)

History

755 readers
1 users here now

Welcome to c/History @ Mander.xyz!

Notice Board

Work in progress...

Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Be kind and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.

Similar Communities

Sister Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Plants & Gardening

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Memes

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
fossilesque@mander.xyz
64
Opinion | The Last Survivors of an Atomic Bomb Have a Story to Tell (www.nytimes.com)
submitted 3 months ago by fossilesque@mander.xyz to c/history@mander.xyz
10 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] can@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The bombs killed an estimated 200,000 men, women and children and maimed countless more. In Hiroshima 50,000 of the city’s 76,000 buildings were completely destroyed. In Nagasaki nearly all homes within a mile and a half of the blast were wiped out. In both cities the bombs wrecked hospitals and schools. Urban infrastructure collapsed.

Americans didn’t dwell on the devastation. Here the bombings were hailed as necessary and heroic acts that brought the war to an end. In the days immediately after the nuclear blasts, the polling firm Gallup found that 85 percent of Americans approved of the decision to drop atomic bombs over Japan. Even decades later the narrative of military might — and American sacrifice — continued to reign.

For the 50th anniversary of the war’s end, the Smithsonian buckled to pressure from veterans and their families and scaled back a planned exhibition that would have offered a more nuanced portrait of the conflict, including questioning the morality of the bomb. The Senate even passed a resolution calling the Smithsonian exhibition “revisionist and offensive” and declared it must “avoid impugning the memory of those who gave their lives for freedom

Was it really veterans or some group pretending to represent their interests?

[–] snake 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

according to this, the groups that protested were not just the air force association and american legion (which both lobby on behalf of veterans), but also individual WWII veterans from around the country.

as the grandchild of a (now deceased) nagasaki survivor, i have heard this rhetoric from not just veterans, but their children and grandchildren as well. in my experience interacting with them (irl, not online), i have never heard a single one criticize the atomic bombs, ever. that's just my experience, though.

[–] can@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Thank you for the context.

[–] acetanilide@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Just to add more, I know a few veterans (not WWII) whose opinion on every international disagreement is to "nuke them all" (meaning anyone against the USA).

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 months ago (1 children)

well if it's any condolence, the current military leadership is highly opposed to nuclear arms being used in war, period at this point.

Trump tried to suggest it a few times, didn't go well.

[–] acetanilide@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That does help actually. Thank you

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

and besides, if we ever did decide to use them, china has nuclear weapons, north korea apparently does, and russia absolutely does. India has the capability in theory to produce them. And iran is pushing to make them, so. Most of the EU has possession of some US nuclear weapons, the UK specifically has their own i believe. Unsure of how independent they are, but they're out there.

We would be the least likely to use them in large scale outside of MAD attacks. NK is probably the most likely, as they would likely fly over russian territory, and that's kinda fucky wucky.

as we haven't even counted the nuclear subs yet, both the US and russia, and china naturally have them, and those are basically automatically insured MAD. If a nuclear weapon were to ever be detonated outside of a test (which is also unlikely due to technical advantages on our side) the entire world would probably collapse within about 3 hours.

[–] acetanilide@lemmy.world 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yikes. I don't know if that's reassuring or not. Although if the world collapsed I wouldn't have to pay for insurance anymore 🤔

[–] KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

well it depends, if you're in a large city (NYC and cali in particular, also probably texas, and maybe the midwest more generically. If you live in the EU you're probably just fucked. Africa ironically might be perfectly fine), you're probably dying instantly. If you live in the middle of nowhere land, you're probably far enough out that you won't immediately notice it, though everything around you is going to be fucked, and the global economy will collapse pretty much immediately.

neither putin, nor mr winnie the pooh of china land (whose name i can never spell or remember) will want the global economic collapse, north korea probably wouldn't care, but they would all starve immediately, so.

Basically the entire civilization of earth in regards to nuclear warfare is a precarious game of jenga, and if anything gets upset, the entire thing comes crashing down. And as a result, it's so unlikely that anything will happen, that it might as well be a zero.

More than likely, if nuclear war WERE to happen, the global economy would have already collapsed, the military forces of the world will probably all be skirmishing constantly, and people will not be doing well to begin with. So by the time you have to worry about a nuclear war, you'll either be dead, or so focused on not dying it probably won't matter anymore.

nuclear warfare is kind of like the street fight equivalent of bringing a pipe bomb. A little silly, but i don't think it's ever happened.